The Process of Publishing a Research Paper in a Journal

The Process of Publishing a Research Paper in a Journal

Introduction: What Happens After You Click “Submit”?

Submitting a research paper to a journal is both exciting and unsettling. On one hand, you have reached an important milestone: your research is complete (for now), the manuscript is written, and you have selected a suitable journal. On the other hand, you now face a period of waiting—often several weeks or months—without any clear sense of what is happening behind the scenes.

This period can feel surprisingly anticlimactic. The intense effort of writing and revising is suddenly replaced by silence. For authors facing deadlines for funding, promotion, or graduation, that silence can be particularly stressful. It may seem as though nothing is happening and time is simply being wasted.

In reality, however, most journals follow a structured sequence of checks and decisions as soon as your paper arrives. Understanding that sequence can make the process feel less mysterious and can also help you act in ways that support, rather than hinder, progress toward publication. This article walks through each stage of the journey—from submission to final publication—and offers practical advice on how you, as an author, can navigate it effectively.

Stage 1: Submission and Initial Technical Checks

The journey begins as soon as you submit your manuscript through the journal’s online system. Modern journals receive hundreds or even thousands of papers each year, so they rely on technical checks to filter out submissions that do not meet basic requirements.

Following the Instructions for Authors

Before your paper ever reaches an editor, it will usually be checked by editorial assistants or automated systems to ensure that you have:

• Used the correct article type (research article, review, short communication, etc.).
• Followed the required format and structure (sections, word limits, tables, figures, references).
• Included all necessary files and declarations (cover letter, ethical approvals, funding statements, conflicts of interest, data availability).
• Submitted a manuscript that is anonymised if the journal operates double-blind peer review.

These checks are not merely bureaucratic obstacles. A well-prepared submission allows the editorial team to move quickly; a poorly prepared one can be returned to you for correction, causing avoidable delays.

Plagiarism Screening and Basic Quality Assessment

Most journals also run submitted manuscripts through a similarity-detection tool to identify possible plagiarism, self-plagiarism, or duplicate publication. At the same time, staff may perform a brief assessment to screen out papers that are obviously unsuitable—for example, work that lies completely outside the journal’s scope, lacks ethical approval, or is written in such poor English that it cannot be evaluated effectively.

At this stage, your paper may be rejected or returned for amendments without being sent to an academic editor. To minimise this risk:

• Ensure that the work is original and that previous related publications are clearly cited and distinguished.
• Proofread carefully or use a professional academic proofreading service to bring your writing to a publishable standard.
• Double-check that you have complied with every item in the journal’s instructions for authors.

Stage 2: Editorial Screening and Desk Rejection

If your manuscript passes the initial technical check, it is assigned to an academic editor—often an editor-in-chief, associate editor, or handling editor with expertise in your field. This editor performs a more substantive evaluation to decide whether your paper should be sent out for peer review.

What the Editor Looks For

During editorial screening, the editor considers questions such as:

• Is the topic clearly within the scope of the journal?
• Does the paper make a novel and significant contribution to its field?
• Are the methods and analysis broadly sound?
• Is the manuscript coherent, well organised, and readable enough to justify the time and effort of reviewers?

If the answer to one or more of these questions is “no,” the editor may issue a desk rejection—a decision made without external peer review. While disappointing, a desk rejection is not necessarily a comment on the quality of your research; it may simply indicate a mismatch with the journal’s priorities, or that similar work has recently been published there.

How Authors Can Improve Their Chances

To reduce the risk of desk rejection:

• Carefully match your article to the journal’s aims and scope.
• Highlight the novelty and importance of your work clearly in the abstract and introduction.
• Use your cover letter to explain why the paper is a good fit for the journal and its readers.
• Ensure that your manuscript presents a clear narrative, with a logical flow from research question to methods, results, and conclusions.

If you receive a desk rejection but the editor provides feedback, treat it as valuable guidance. You may be able to revise the manuscript quickly and submit it to a more suitable journal or—if invited—resubmit to the same journal after substantial improvement.

Stage 3: Peer Review

If the editor decides to proceed, your paper enters the peer review stage. This is where other experts in your field evaluate the quality, originality, and clarity of your research.

Choosing Reviewers

Typically, the editor will invite two or more reviewers. Some journals allow authors to suggest potential reviewers or list people they would prefer to exclude. The final choice, however, lies with the editor, who must balance expertise, independence, and availability.

Finding reviewers is not always easy. Academics are busy, and some may decline invitations or fail to respond. As a result, this stage can take longer than authors expect. Editors often send reminders and may need to approach several individuals before securing enough detailed reports.

What Reviewers Evaluate

Once reviewers accept the assignment, they assess the manuscript in depth. They might consider:

• Is the research question clear and relevant?
• Are the methods appropriate and described in sufficient detail for replication?
• Are the results presented clearly and analysed correctly?
• Do the conclusions follow logically from the data?
• Does the paper engage adequately with current literature?
• Is the writing sufficiently clear and precise to convey the findings?

At the end of their review, they provide comments for the editor and the author, including a recommendation such as:

• Accept without changes (rare).
• Accept after minor revisions.
• Invite major revisions and resubmission.
• Reject, without encouragement to resubmit.

Stage 4: Editorial Decision and First Round of Revisions

The editor reviews all the reports and makes a decision, taking into account both the reviewers’ recommendations and their own judgement of the paper. The decision letter usually includes:

• A clear outcome (e.g. “revise and resubmit”, “minor revisions”, or “rejection”).
• Copies of the reviewers’ comments, sometimes edited or anonymised.
• Additional guidance from the editor, especially where reviewer comments conflict.

Responding Constructively to Reviewer Feedback

Receiving reviewer comments can be emotionally challenging, particularly if they are lengthy or critical. However, they are also an opportunity to strengthen your paper. If the editor invites a revision:

• Read all comments carefully and set them aside for a day if you feel defensive or upset.
• Prepare a detailed response letter that addresses each point raised by the reviewers and the editor.
• For every change you make, indicate clearly where in the manuscript it appears (e.g. “page 8, paragraph 2”).
• If you decide not to follow a suggestion, explain why, using scholarly reasoning and evidence rather than emotion.

A thorough and respectful response—even when you disagree—shows the editor that you take the review process seriously and are willing to engage in constructive dialogue.

Stage 5: Revised Submission and Possible Re-Review

When you resubmit your revised manuscript and response letter, the editor will either:

• Make a decision directly, if the changes are relatively minor and clearly address the concerns.
• Send the paper back to one or more reviewers for further evaluation, particularly after major revisions.

It is not unusual for the process of review and revision to repeat more than once. While this can be frustrating, each cycle usually leads to a better, clearer, and more robust article. Keeping an open mind and focusing on improvement, rather than just “acceptance”, will make this stage easier to manage.

Stage 6: Acceptance and Production

Once the editor is satisfied that the manuscript meets the journal’s standards, you will receive the long-awaited email: your paper has been accepted for publication. At this point the focus shifts from scientific content to production and presentation.

Copyediting, Typesetting, and Proofs

Your article will be copyedited to correct remaining language issues, ensure consistency with the journal’s style, and check references and figure labels. It is then typeset into the journal’s layout and you will be sent page proofs—a PDF showing how the article will appear in print or online.

The proof stage is your final opportunity to:

• Correct typographical errors or minor formatting problems.
• Resolve any layout issues with tables and figures.
• Check that author names, affiliations, and acknowledgements are accurate.

Journals typically allow very little time for proof correction—sometimes only 24–72 hours—so you should prioritise this task and focus on essential changes only. Substantive alterations to content are usually not allowed at this stage.

Administrative Tasks

Alongside production, you may need to complete administrative steps such as:

• Signing a copyright transfer or publishing agreement, or choosing a licence if the journal is Open Access.
• Arranging payment of any applicable publication fees or APCs.
• Confirming permissions for previously published material (figures, tables, long quotations) used in your article.

Handling these tasks promptly avoids slowing down the publication schedule.

Stage 7: Online and Print Publication

After proofs are corrected, your paper is ready to go live. Many journals now publish articles online as soon as they are finalised, labelling them “advance online publication”, “early view”, or “articles in press”. At this point your work has a DOI and can be cited, even if it has not yet been assigned to a specific issue.

Later, your article will be formally included in a journal issue with volume, issue, and page numbers (for print or PDF). Some journals exist only online and do not produce print issues; others still provide both print and digital formats.

Once your paper is published, you can:

• Share the official link in emails, on your institutional webpage, and on professional networks.
• Deposit preprints or accepted versions in repositories, following the journal’s self-archiving policy.
• Monitor citations and engagement via indexing services and altmetric tools.

Conclusion: Navigating the Journey Strategically

Publishing a research paper in a journal is not a single event but a involving technical checks, editorial screening, peer review, revision, production, and final publication. At each stage, there are clear tasks for journal staff—and equally important responsibilities for authors. By understanding what happens behind the scenes, you can:

• Prepare your manuscript in a way that minimises avoidable delays.
• Choose journals that genuinely match your topic and goals.
• Respond constructively to reviewer feedback and turn criticism into improvement.
• Meet tight deadlines for proofs and administrative forms.

Above all, recognising the logic of the process makes it easier to see review and revision as part of the normal evolution of a strong paper, not as personal judgement or random fate. In the current environment, where journals and universities monitor similarity scores and restrict AI-generated text, it is also prudent to rely on experienced human proofreaders rather than AI tools when polishing your final draft. This combination of strategic understanding, careful preparation, and professional support will give your research the best possible chance of finding a home in the journal literature and reaching the audience it deserves.